The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Assyrian

Assyrian wrote:

So how is our conscience supposed to be able to tell us eating meat before the fall would have been wrong?

wolfsbane wrote:

It isn't. My point was we are now permitted to do so, in answer to your question if was was a vegetarian.

Which was in answer to your claim that our conscience should tell us that carnivores were wrong. I did not actually think you were a vegetarian. Most bible believing Christians are not. What I did think was that you were inconsistent. You did not realise the contradiction in your theology between it being alright for God to allow people to eat meat, and believing that the existence of carnivores is somehow intrinsically 'bad'. It is a common YEC blindspot.

Well, here is a passage that clearly teaches that human death is a result of the Fall. If the greater case is true, the lesser is also, and the other texts that speak of the whole of creation groaning with us makes perfect sense.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

'If the greater case is true, the lesser is also.' You mean when a man breaks his nose his dog does too? Sorry, it just doesn't follow. I agree the passage says human death is the result of the fall, though it is not clear whether it is speaking of physical or spiritual death. However the passage gives us the reason death spread to all men. It is because all sinned. This cannot apply to animals, because animals don't sin. So where does animal death come from? If it is not a result of the fall, what is the problem of animals living and dying before the fall?

Does the passage about creation groaning say anything about it being the result of the fall?

Then you have a very distorted view of the gospel. The good news is that Christ's death has paid for the sins of all who trust in Him; not 'Whoopee, the Messiah has been murdered'.

Who said anything about whoopee? 'Good' can be solemn and the deepest act of pure love. It was good that Christ died for us. It was good that God made a world where his son could die for us.

Yes, I rejoice in the predestination of God. That does not make suffering and death 'very good' any more than it makes Satan very good. Your reasoning must have suffering, death, sin, Satan, sinners all good. It is totally distorted reasoning. Christ would not have died for His people had they not sinned; but that does not make my sins good. Think about it. Suffering and death are a result of the Fall.

Christ's death was God's answer for sin. I do not believe the fall of man or angel were predestined, though they were foreknown. Christ death however, was predestined. I think you are confusing death which is morally neutral with sin which is not. Death in itself is simply the end of life. It is up to God who gives life to decide how long a life should be. If God decides to give a rabbit the gift of three years life then its death at the end of those three years is simply the fulfilment of that that gift.

Even in Genesis 3 Adam did not died physically as a result of the fall, though he was told he would die on the day he ate from the tree. He did die spiritually, his relationship with God was destroyed. So as far as I can see the death that came as a result of the fall was spiritual. Though spiritual death also cuts us off from eternal life. But if Adam didn't die physically the day he sinned, I don't see how you can say the death that came through sin, the death Adam was to suffer the day he sinned, can that be physical death. There was suffering before the fall too. At least God told the woman he would 'greatly increase' her pains in childbirth. How can you greatly increase something that isn't already there?

That takes us back to the nature of suffering and death. If they are 'very good' as you say, then of course God could have done it. But if they are the consequences of sin, then God could not without being unjust - and that is impossible.

There is a difference between a life ending because it is cut short as punishment and a life that has come to end of its given lifespan. Just because the government take money off us as punishment if we break the speed limit it does not make it unjust if the take money off us as tax. But the point is irrelevant you have never shown that animal death is the consequence of sin.

He met the qualifications because Christ revealed all to him; all the truths that the disciples heard over their time with Christ; and much more beside: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%2012:1-7;&version=50; And of course, he was able to say he had met the risen Christ.

Having truth revealed to him is not the same as being someone who accompanied Jesus and the disciples from the time of John's baptism. I have had it revealed to me too when I read the gospels. It doesn't qualify me to be one of the twelve apostles. I wasn't there. Neither was Paul. Neither of us could stand in a court of law and say we actually saw Jesus feed the five thousand. Besides we do not know what was revealed to Paul by Jesus. Paul wasn't allowed tell anyone.

Blessings Assyrian

robindch

> [Son Goku] With my curiosity satisfied I think that I will bow out of this debate,

Thanks for your contributions which have always been polite and interesting

> Instead they follow evolution around saying "you missed a spot" and
> when somebody decides to look at the spot in detail it turns out to
> be vague pseudo-metaphysical whatiffery.

That's about right. As creationists do no research and produce nothing, all they can fall back upon is ignoring, misquoting or just plain lying about the good folks who do. Notice also that most of the creationist arguments are designed for a simplistic audience inured to bombast and windbaggery, not the weighing up of multiple threads of evidence originating in large amounts of careful research. So we get "no fossils exist!!" or "evolutionists are atheists and atheists are immoral so evolution is wrongl!!", rather than scrupulously thought-out papers on rates of genetic drift or patterns arising from the geographical distribution of species.

> Creationism has given us a collection of 70-page threads of nonsense
> across the internet.

Creationism has produced far, far more than the almost 1,400 posts over the last six months in this small corner of the internet.

Though a quick search shows that us evolutionists might yet have the last laugh -- googling for "god" produces 537m hits, while "evolution" produces 570m which goes to prove that on the internet at least, Darwin is indeed bigger than god.

.

bmoferrall

Assyrian wrote:

But the point is irrelevant you have never shown that animal death is the consequence of sin.

Hi Assyrian
Interesting contributions. Forgive me if this sounds a little crude and unscientific (the tecchies will correct me anyway).
Given that evolution states we share the same ancestry with all other living creatures, can you explain how you see the origins of modern man, and how it fits (if at all) with Genesis' description of Adam as having been created in God's image, distinct from all other kinds.
i.e. Do you see God as having intervened at some point in the evolutionary continuum, and infused the first 'perfected' Homo Sapiens with a spirit/soul...or, do you still see Adam as a special creation, distinct from all other creatures, and formed fully mature by God at a given point in the evolutionary timeline...or, must we file this all away as an unknowable mystery...or, something else maybe.
If God did indeed intervene to create a fully mature Adam, then why not 'go the whole hog' and create the earth, and all its creatures, fully mature too?

'tis all a bit of a head-wrecker for me

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

With my curiosity satisfied I think that I will bow out of this debate, however before I do I'd like to make a few closing points.

I note your closing points and can only suggest you check out the creationist sites for their explanations of the evidence. We both have the same evidence; just the interpretation differs. I note also how uncomfortable you are about entropy and evolution, yet you are happy to associate evolutionary science with wave-particle duality, etc. Seems to be different rules for different world-views.

Thank you for the challenging and informative arguments you provided over so many posts. I look forward to meeting you on other threads.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

I note also how uncomfortable you are about entropy and evolution

They don't have anything to do with each other!!

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ENTRTHER.html

Today the word entropy is as much a part of the language of the physical sciences as it is of the human sciences. Unfortunately, physicists, engineers, and sociologists use indiscriminately a number of terms that they take to be synonymous with entropy, such as disorder, probability...

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

You did not realise the contradiction in your theology between it being alright for God to allow people to eat meat, and believing that the existence of carnivores is somehow intrinsically 'bad'. It is a common YEC blindspot.

There is no contradiction. God is entitled to allow suffering and death in a fallen world. He could not do so in an unfallen one. He commands the execution of our fellow-man in this fallen world, as an act of judgement on the offender and as an act of mercy on the rest of us. But could He have done so in an unfallen world, without Himself being unrighteous? Certainly not.

and the Scripture tells us what man and animals ate before the Fall: Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [emphasis mine]

However the passage gives us the reason death spread to all men. It is because all sinned. This cannot apply to animals, because animals don't sin. So where does animal death come from? If it is not a result of the fall, what is the problem of animals living and dying before the fall?

Scripture tells us that the animals, etc. are in the bondage of corruption, hardly a description of the 'very good' state in which they were created.
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

It was good that God made a world where his son could die for us.

This is a further example of your clouded thinking: by this logic, the 'very good' description of the pre-Fall world applies equally to the post-Fall world, for without sin, Christ could not have died for us.

No, Assyrian, God's goodness to sinners does not mean our condition is good, much less 'very good' as God described His creation in Genesis 1.

But if Adam didn't die physically the day he sinned, I don't see how you can say the death that came through sin, the death Adam was to suffer the day he sinned, can that be physical death.

That would only be true if we took death to include the final extinction of life. Seems to me the move from perfect health and no progressive degeneration that man knew before the Fall, to the sickness, progressive degeneration and eventual extinguishment of life he knew after the Fall cover it well: the day Adam sinned, all that began. He was as surely dead the second he ate the fruit as he was 930 years later when his spirit left his body.

There was suffering before the fall too. At least God told the woman he would 'greatly increase' her pains in childbirth. How can you greatly increase something that isn't already there?

Is physical exercise necessarily painful? There certainly is a degree of strain involved, but it can be pleasurable rather than painful. Double that, and the pleasure may be replaced by pain. Make it five or ten times the amount, and death is very near.

I know of some women even today who had less pain in childbirth than I have in an enjoyable but strenuous walk. I think it likely that childbirth in an unfallen world would have been just that - an thrilling exercise. With the Fall it was to be painful, usually very painful.

There is a difference between a life ending because it is cut short as punishment and a life that has come to end of its given lifespan.

Unfortunately for theistic evolutionists, happy, quiet lives and peaceful deaths is not suggested in evolutionary theory. Nature red in tooth and claw is. Hunger, thirst, fear, pain, death, grief - all 'very good' according to theistic evolutionists.

Having truth revealed to him is not the same as being someone who accompanied Jesus and the disciples from the time of John's baptism. I have had it revealed to me too when I read the gospels. It doesn't qualify me to be one of the twelve apostles. I wasn't there. Neither was Paul. Neither of us could stand in a court of law and say we actually saw Jesus feed the five thousand.

Paul's point is that he personally met Christ, had from His lips all the truth that the others had delivered to them. Christ's personal confirmation of all that He taught and did in His ministry, and much more besides, qualified Paul as an apostle. He did not depend on hearing it form other apostles. And the very fact of meeting the risen Christ made Paul a witness to the Resurrection.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

The emperor has a fine suit of clothes

No, only kidding.:D

What he actually said was:

That's about right. As creationists do no research and produce nothing, all they can fall back upon is ignoring, misquoting or just plain lying about the good folks who do. Notice also that most of the creationist arguments are designed for a simplistic audience inured to bombast and windbaggery, not the weighing up of multiple threads of evidence originating in large amounts of careful research. So we get "no fossils exist!!" or "evolutionists are atheists and atheists are immoral so evolution is wrongl!!", rather than scrupulously thought-out papers on rates of genetic drift or patterns arising from the geographical distribution of species.

Those of you who are interested can check out what creationist scientists have actually researched and written by going to the sites I previously recommended. To benefit, of course you will need to be seeking the truth rather than just fuming at the impertinence of these undermenschen who dare to question the received truth.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

To benefit, of course you will need to be seeking the truth rather than just fuming at the impertinence of these undermenschen who dare to question the received truth.

We will when you do likewise

robindch

> Those of you who are interested can check out what creationist scientists
> have actually researched and written by going to the sites I previously
> recommended. To benefit, of course you will need to be seeking the truth
> rather than just fuming at the impertinence of these undermenschen who
> dare to question the received truth.

Before I start, the word's "untermenschen" and it would perhaps be worth your while finding out more about its historical context before flinging it gaily about, as some (say, those with Jewish or German friends) might find it offensive.

Anyhow, much and all as I appreciate the depth of your belief in the curiously inerrant dogma of creationism, I'm afraid that I have examined in depth what creationists think is evidence -- a few books, plenty of websites and even attending the odd lecture or two (an exercise verging on the masochistic, I can assure you). Mainly, as I've said before, to try to understand how it spreads.

And, as SG and I have pointed out in the past, the evidence simply amounts to picking pointless holes in what's not understood, or lying about what might be. It's a bit like watching a teenager whom one believes should really know better, picking his nose; or perhaps like listening to a right-wing shock-jock in the USA rebuking the windmills of the "librul eleet", while remaining strangely silent on the far grander crimes of his ideological collegues.

But, soft! Was that some light crept in?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51097592&postcount=1279

perhaps it was; an inch, but a true inch. My advice -- go back to this posting. Read what I wrote, and what you replied. Then we can move forward.

Assyrian

bmoferrall wrote:

Hi Assyrian
Interesting contributions. Forgive me if this sounds a little crude and unscientific (the tecchies will correct me anyway).
Given that evolution states we share the same ancestry with all other living creatures, can you explain how you see the origins of modern man, and how it fits (if at all) with Genesis' description of Adam as having been created in God's image, distinct from all other kinds.
i.e. Do you see God as having intervened at some point in the evolutionary continuum, and infused the first 'perfected' Homo Sapiens with a spirit/soul...or, do you still see Adam as a special creation, distinct from all other creatures, and formed fully mature by God at a given point in the evolutionary timeline...or, must we file this all away as an unknowable mystery...or, something else maybe.
If God did indeed intervene to create a fully mature Adam, then why not 'go the whole hog' and create the earth, and all its creatures, fully mature too?

'tis all a bit of a head-wrecker for me

Hi bmoferral, good questions.

I think some of what we have here is really just new version of some very old question. What is the soul, what is the spirit? Does God place a new spirit in each person after they are conceived or does the spirit grow from the seed we received from our parents? I would not have a problem with soul/spirit/consciousness being an emergent property that came with the increasing complexity of our brains as long as we recognise that emergent property as part of God's plan to make mankind in his image and likeness. As I said we don't know what the human spirit is.

It may be that the human spirit is something God placed in man when he was ready. Solomon in Ecclesiastes seems to think that the spirits of animals return to the dust when they die but the spirits of men return to God. Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Note the 'who knows'. He is a bit more confident about what happen the human spirit by chapter 12 Eccles 12:7 the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. This would suggest God gave each person their spirit, including the first humans God formed. I don't really know.

I think there is a lot that as figurative in the story if Adam and Even in the garden. Can perishable food like fruit from a tree give us eternal life? Not if we are to believe what Jesus tells us. John 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. This raises problems for a literal interpretation of the tree of life that you could eat from and live forever. Again we are told in Revelation the snake was really Satan, but Genesis it was a snake all the way though the story, even the prophecy of a redeemer was described Jesus crushing the head of a snake. He didn't really. So I don't see any problem saying the picture of God as a sculptor or potter making man out of clay, is a beautiful illustration of God creating man, but doesn't tell us how he did it.

There is an interesting verse just at the end of the first creation account. Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Two thing to notice here, firstly, the 'six day' creation is described as the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, which tells us something about how the word day can be used in the bible. The other thing is that it describes the creation of the heavens and the earth, of plants, fish, animals and man as the generations of the heavens and the earth. This is the Hebrew word toledoth which means a genealogy. Kind of suggests we might all be related doesn't it?

The bible teaches us that God''s timescale is very different from ours, and while he can work instantaneous and spectacular miracles, he seems to love seeing things grow and mature slowly and taking his time.

Cheers Assyrian

bmoferrall

Thanks for the detailed response Assyrian, plenty of food for thought there. I would comment, only my knowledge of the OT (and evolution!) is shamefully lacking at the moment. It's a complex issue, so it's good to hear different perspectives.

Assyrian

You're welcome, bm.

wolfsbane wrote:

There is no contradiction. God is entitled to allow suffering and death in a fallen world. He could not do so in an unfallen one. He commands the execution of our fellow-man in this fallen world, as an act of judgement on the offender and as an act of mercy on the rest of us. But could He have done so in an unfallen world, without Himself being unrighteous? Certainly not.

Hello wolfbane,

The contradiction is that you believe death is intrinsically bad before the fall, but that is perfectly acceptable for God to allow us to eat meat after the fall. How was it just for God to condemn animals to death for the sin committed by another species? What did they do? Even if animals became mortal after the fall, something scripture never says, how is it right to take the life of an innocent animal for food or a religious ceremony, if a predator taking the life of an animal before the fall would have been wrong? Has morality changed too?

Your theology made much more sense when you said 'And as I've said above, God is entitled to do as He pleases with all life. He is the potter, we the clay.' God is the giver of life it was as good for him to create carnivores and herbivores before the fall as it was to allow us to eat meat after. In fact it says much more for his justice only ever to have granted animals a limited lifespan, than to have punished them with the loss of eternal life for sins they have never committed.

and the Scripture tells us what man and animals ate before the Fall: Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [emphasis mine]

This doesn't actually say that animals were all herbivores, just that photosynthesising plants provided the food source for them all. Certainly the writer of Psalm 104 did not think lions were herbivores before the fall, he describes God providing them with prey in this creation Psalm.

Psalm 104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.
20 You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens.
23 Man (Hebrew: Adam) goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening.

Scripture tells us that the animals, etc. are in the bondage of corruption, hardly a description of the 'very good' state in which they were created.
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

This passage never mentions the fall. Interestingly, the word Paul uses to describe what God subject to decay is 'the creation'. It does not tell us animal death is the result of the fall.

This is a further example of your clouded thinking: by this logic, the 'very good' description of the pre-Fall world applies equally to the post-Fall world, for without sin, Christ could not have died for us.

No, Assyrian, God's goodness to sinners does not mean our condition is good, much less 'very good' as God described His creation in Genesis 1.

Yet you call it God's 'goodness'.

Sorry wolfbane all you have given is sentimentality that denies the wonderful world God created.

That would only be true if we took death to include the final extinction of life. Seems to me the move from perfect health and no progressive degeneration that man knew before the Fall, to the sickness, progressive degeneration and eventual extinguishment of life he knew after the Fall cover it well: the day Adam sinned, all that began. He was as surely dead the second he ate the fruit as he was 930 years later when his spirit left his body.

No he was alive, well and having babies. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree. He didn't. Not physically anyway. Nowhere in the bible is living for 930 years referred to as sudden death or dying the day you do something.

Is physical exercise necessarily painful? There certainly is a degree of strain involved, but it can be pleasurable rather than painful. Double that, and the pleasure may be replaced by pain. Make it five or ten times the amount, and death is very near.

I know of some women even today who had less pain in childbirth than I have in an enjoyable but strenuous walk. I think it likely that childbirth in an unfallen world would have been just that - an thrilling exercise. With the Fall it was to be painful, usually very painful.

So why didn't God say I will make the pleasure you would have bearing children so intense it hurts? It was pain that was going to be multiplied.

Unfortunately for theistic evolutionists, happy, quiet lives and peaceful deaths is not suggested in evolutionary theory. Nature red in tooth and claw is. Hunger, thirst, fear, pain, death, grief - all 'very good' according to theistic evolutionists.

Most animals live lives of eating and playing and sleeping and playing and eating and sleeping and making babies and eating and sleeping and making babies and eating and aagh! As Jesus tells us they don't worry about tomorrow. This creationist portrayal of nature as 'hunger, thirst, fear, pain, death, grief' is Victorian sentimentality, unrealistic scientifically and totally foreign to the way the bible views God's creation. Personally I think it owes more to the Gnostic philosophy's view of the material world as evil than anything in the bible.

Paul's point is that he personally met Christ, had from His lips all the truth that the others had delivered to them. Christ's personal confirmation of all that He taught and did in His ministry, and much more besides, qualified Paul as an apostle. He did not depend on hearing it form other apostles. And the very fact of meeting the risen Christ made Paul a witness to the Resurrection.

It certainly qualified him as an apostle, but not as one of the twelve apostolic eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.

Assyrian

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Before I start, the word's "untermenschen" and it would perhaps be worth your while finding out more about its historical context before flinging it gaily about, as some (say, those with Jewish or German friends) might find it offensive.

Thank you for the spelling correction. I was aware of yours but thought the more anglicized form was also valid, having encountered it in articles like: http://www.itctel.com/mnmp/jewishstudies/JTHumanNature.htm

It seems an appropriate term to use, seeing you recommended H. L. Mencken's article in which he described creationism as 'conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters.'

Gore Vidal, also an admirer of Mencken, says Mencken regarded the 'clay-eating Appalachians', as 'subhuman'.

But, soft! Was that some light crept in?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1279

perhaps it was; an inch, but a true inch. My advice -- go back to this posting. Read what I wrote, and what you replied. Then we can move forward.

I have reread both and can't see what you are getting at, other than you want evolutionary theory not to have to explain how life began - which I think is an essential link in any explanation of how life has got to where it is.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

I have reread both and can't see what you are getting at, other than you want evolutionary theory not to have to explain how life began - which I think is an essential link in any explanation of how life has got to where it is.

Abiogenesis deals with origins of life. Evolution does not.

robindch

> you recommended H. L. Mencken's article in which he described
> creationism as 'conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters.'

Yes, I tend to agree with Mencken here. Though I don't like the use of the terms "conspiracy", "inferiors" or "betters" -- remember that both Mencken and Vidal are published polemicists and will happily step over the bounds of good taste to make a splashy point. The sentiment is perhaps more accurately phrased as "creationism consists of uninformed people demeaning or misrepresenting, frequently for profit, the ideas of informed people", though the sharp poetry of Mencken's line will have long since evaporated.

> I have reread both and can't see what you are getting at, other than
> you want evolutionary theory not to have to explain how life began

I said in the post:

Evolution - explains why organisms change over time. Doesn't say squat about how life arises, just how organisms change from generation to generation.

And that's exactly what I mean when I say it's about "differential reproductive success". Evolution in the sense that Darwin wrote about it, explains absolutely nothing about where life came from. Nor does it explain where the Earth or the Sun or the Milky Way came from. Or why the Big Bang happened. All it says is why organisms change over time and seem to adapt to their habitats. I don't "want evolutionary theory not to have to explain how life began" because IT DOESN'T attempt to. It has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the topic at all. Zilch.

And you quite rightly said that "Creationists could sign up to it" because there's nothing threatening about it at all -- it explains why there are kangaroos in australia and not in NZ; why five digits are common to humans, horses, bats and whales; why humans have goosebumps; why we're genetically (and hormonally, and behaviorally) almost identical to apes; why the laryngeal nerve wanders drunkenly about in humans, giraffes and dogs; and a thousand other interesting questions about the world we live in. It says nothing about god, or religion, or morals or anything else. It's just about organisms and how they produce (or not, as the case may be).

So to repeat again -- the current theory of evolution says *nothing* about anything which doesn't produce offspring. If you want to disagree with the current ideas about how life began, then that's fine, but that's a different topic, and you need to know that this called biogenesis and not evolution.

Or, to produce a simple metaphor: evolution is a description of the plumbing of life's house, but evolution says nothing about where the water comes from.

Does this make sense?

pH

So what's happening in the UK recently?

- Seems like ID/Creationism is gathering some momentum there too.

Main on Sunday:
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3481/mailonsundayhitchensmuppet9apr.jpg

Daily Mail
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9941/dailymailphillipsmuppet10apr06.jpg

(Not my scans/images I'm just linking to them and not responsible for the link names!)

wolfsbane

Thanks, pH, for those clips. Such skepticism and heresy! Or, to borrow from robindch, But, soft! Was that some light crept in?

John Doe

I doubt very much that any light could be shed on a debate through the medium of tabloid journalism. But, never fear, I kept an open mind and read the extracts anyway.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

The contradiction is that you believe death is intrinsically bad before the fall, but that is perfectly acceptable for God to allow us to eat meat after the fall. How was it just for God to condemn animals to death for the sin committed by another species? What did they do? Even if animals became mortal after the fall, something scripture never says, how is it right to take the life of an innocent animal for food or a religious ceremony, if a predator taking the life of an animal before the fall would have been wrong? Has morality changed too?

Your theology made much more sense when you said 'And as I've said above, God is entitled to do as He pleases with all life. He is the potter, we the clay.' God is the giver of life it was as good for him to create carnivores and herbivores before the fall as it was to allow us to eat meat after. In fact it says much more for his justice only ever to have granted animals a limited lifespan, than to have punished them with the loss of eternal life for sins they have never committed.

No, the morality didn't change - for God is sovereign over all His creation and can determine what happens to it. The point is: He cannot do evil, nor declare that which is evil to be good. Death and suffering as a consequence of sin is within those moral parameters. Death and suffering without sin and being declared 'very good' is without.

Death is not 'very good' - the Bible tells us it is an enemy. Speaking of the resurrection of the physical body, Paul tells us:
1 Corinthians 15: 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

Suffering is not 'very good' - the natural world joins us in our 'bondage of corruption', hardly a mark of Eden:
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Now we come to the objection that the animals did not sin, so why did death and suffering come upon them? The answer lies with Adam's headship over creation: when he fell, everything did.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Why are you and I born sinners, since we did not sin like Adam? Because we are of him. We die both spiritually and naturally; the animals and indeed the material universe dies naturally.

God plainly shows us this link of the animal world with Man in His wrath against us, even though they have not sinned:
Genesis 6:
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

This doesn't actually say that animals were all herbivores, just that photosynthesising plants provided the food source for them all. Certainly the writer of Psalm 104 did not think lions were herbivores before the fall, he describes God providing them with prey in this creation Psalm.

You err in linking God's provision for the lions with pre-Fall creation. This Psalm is an expression of praise to God for both His creation, and provision since. Otherwise you would have ships in pre-Fall times:
Psalm 104:26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there.

Here's the transition from a vegetarian diet to an omnivorous one for man:
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Now that shows the eating of animals was not according to God's will in the original creation order. The original giving of plants to both man and animal strongly suggests animals were also intended only to eat plants, since that is clearly what was implied for man.

No doubt the Fallen animal world had quickly resorted to predation after Eden, just as man had quickly resorted to murder to advance his cause (Cain and Abel).

So why didn't God say I will make the pleasure you would have bearing children so intense it hurts? It was pain that was going to be multiplied.

As I pointed out, the physical sensation that begins with pleasure can move to pain.

Most animals live lives of eating and playing and sleeping and playing and eating and sleeping and making babies and eating and sleeping and making babies and eating and aagh! As Jesus tells us they don't worry about tomorrow. This creationist portrayal of nature as 'hunger, thirst, fear, pain, death, grief' is Victorian sentimentality, unrealistic scientifically and totally foreign to the way the bible views God's creation. Personally I think it owes more to the Gnostic philosophy's view of the material world as evil than anything in the bible.

Gnosticism viewed the material world as evil; Christianity views the world God created as 'very good' and the one we now live in after the Fall as far from that, groaning in the bondage of corruption. Nothing sentimental about that.

You're view is certainly not Biblical. Everything is not 'very good' even if most of life is pleasant. It is the pain, fear, and dying that rule out our Fallen world as 'very good'. See the poor animal crippled with arthritis; mauled by a predator; riddled with cancer. See it starving to death, or choking with thirst. Tend to our fellowman who is in similar situations. Nothing pleasant about it. Many of us have sat praying for the Lord to take them out of their suffering. But this is the way God made His creation to be, according to theistic evolution.

robindch

Having lied to millions in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries with existing or growing social problems caused by religious fundamentalism, creationists on the international fundie circuit have been turning their cynical gaze and grasping paws to England:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1755770,00.html

Meanwhile, scientists, biologists, teachers, public intellectuals, archbishops and other immoral, uneducated and atheistic dross have timorously suggested that creationism's rise and glorification of ignorance might be a bad thing:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735731,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1758665,00.html

Ye gods, they're coming to the party a bit late, aren't they?

pH

He will console believers that Genesis is true, that the Earth is not millions of years old but only a few thousand and that science proves it, rather than the Darwinian theory of evolution accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists for more than a century.

That's just plain annoying, why does it always end up as Evolution (very old) vs Creationism (few thousand years) as if the only thing standing in creationism's way is Darwinian Evolution?

Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology (Even Geography), Physics etc etc all present compelling evidence in their own right that the Earth and the Universe is much older than a few thousand years.

I know creationists have a special kind of hatred for the ToE but to ignore all these other sciences which lead to the same datings is very unfair.

J C

Quote Robin
Evolution in the sense that Darwin wrote about it, explains absolutely nothing about where life came from……….
So to repeat again -- the current theory of evolution says *nothing* about anything which doesn't produce offspring. If you want to disagree with the current ideas about how life began, then that's fine,

And with that, the Great ‘muck to Man’ Evolutionary Beast just toppled over and DIED!!!!!


An Obituary for (Muck to Man) Evolution

The death has just been announced of Evolution at the ripe old age of 150, after a long illness. It’s death marks the end of an Evolutionary Dynasty that traced it’s roots right back to antiquity.

All Creation Scientists, who had recently examined Evolution, were shocked by it’s dreadful intellectual condition. They found Evolution to be completely incoherent – on the one hand it claimed to be evidentially based but on the other hand it continued to claim that ‘muck evolved into man’ without a shred of evidence for this assertion.

During it’s final illness, Evolution had it bad days and it’s really awful days.
On the bad days, Evolution claimed to know all about how life arose and developed on Earth.
On the really awful days, when it became more lucid, Evolution would humbly admit that it hadn’t a clue about how life arose and developed on Earth.

Of particular concern to the Creation Specialists who studied it, was its complete inability to differentiate between MACRO-EVOLUTION and MICRO-EVOLUTION.
When it was pointed out that ‘Muck to Man Macro-Evolution’ required the GENERATION of vast quantities of NEW genetic information while ‘Grey to Brown Moth Micro-Evolution’ was confined to merely selecting between EXISTING genetic information – Evolution seemed incapable of understanding the critically important difference between these two very basic concepts.

When asked if it accepted that the spontaneous generation of Human Beings from Pond Scum was mathematically impossible – Evolution would stare blankly at the wall and say things like “there is no real difference between Muck, Moths or Men – because each word starts with the letter M.”

Every Creationist Doctor (and indeed Professor) who examined Evolution pronounced it to be ‘On the Point of Death’ – but Evolutionists countered these assertions by the simple (but ingenious) device of denying the scientific qualifications of the thousands of conventionally trained Creation Scientists who made this diagnosis.

Of course, the sad reality was that Evolution had been ‘brain-dead’ for many years, but this fact didn’t seem to perturb Evolutionists in the slightest as they continued to actually celebrate Evolution’s lack of intelligent brain power. They even took offence at the suggestion by Intelligent Design proponents that Evolution could ever have an intelligent basis.

In a desperate attempt to lift Evolution’s IQ above zero, ID doctors recently tried to transplant a brain into Evolution. However, this initiative failed spectacularly when massive levels of internal rejection were encountered.
With no brain, and no desire on it’s part to ever have a brain, the fate of Evolution was thus effectively ‘sealed’.

The end came suddenly for Evolution on the Boards.ie when it collapsed completely, after being overwhelmed by the evidence of it’s own invalidity. Valiant attempts were made by Evolutionists to save it – including the deployment of a ‘Toothless Crocodile’ to provide ‘mouth to mouth’ resuscitation!!!
However, it was all to no avail and Creation Scientists ‘pulled the plug’ on Evolution, by demonstrating that it was incapable of even producing the sequence for a useful Protein, without the assistance of every electron in the known Universe and an effective infinity of time at it's disposal.

Evolution then mindlessly ‘flailed about’ for a while, as it tried in vain to spontaneously generate even one new useful Amino Acid Sequence to save itself. Natural Selection tried to help, but it was unable to offer any assistance because all intermediate sequences offered no advantage, and in most cases only fatal disadvantages.
Evolution then tried to randomly generate a Critical Sequence itself, but it was unable to do so due the vast amount of useless ‘combinatorial space’ surrounding every useful sequence, and it ended up being completely swamped in an ocean of self-generated useless peptides.

Evolution finally succumbed when it was proven that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

As the enormity of what had just happened began to sink in, the ‘hand wave’ reflex of Evolutionists was triggered – and we were treated to one of the most spectacular sights in the Natural World – An Evolutionist’s ‘Mexican Wave.’
This perfectly co-ordinated, but ultimately futile activity did provide a magnificent display, while it lasted, but it eventually petered out.

Meanwhile, 99 % of conventional Scientists are completely unaffected (one way or the other) by the ‘Death of Evolution’ and life goes on ‘as normal’ for every one of them.
Theistic Evolutionists are equally stoical about the ‘Death of Evolution’. They claim that Evolution was only an allegory for Direct Creation anyway – or was it the other way around – nobody seems to know at this stage!!!

On the other hand, the reaction by the 0.1% of scientists who are ‘Dedicated Evolutionists’ could be described as ‘muted but dignified’.
Some are in complete denial, but the realists amongst them are inconsolable at their loss.

Meanwhile, grief-stricken Evolutionists are refusing to bury Evolution. Instead they intend to preserve it for posterity by stuffing it and placing it on display in a permanent memorial.

Creation Scientists have welcomed this initiative, as it will allow future generations to marvel at how such a dubious and flimsy hypothesis could ever have gained such currency during the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

That's just plain annoying, why does it always end up as Evolution (very old) vs Creationism (few thousand years) as if the only thing standing in creationism's way is Darwinian Evolution?

Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology (Even Geography), Physics etc etc all present compelling evidence in their own right that the Earth and the Universe is much older than a few thousand years.

I know creationists have a special kind of hatred for the ToE but to ignore all these other sciences which lead to the same datings is very unfair.

Well, as you can see from JC's post (and many of wolfsbane's), Creationists are actually not going head-to-head with the Theory of Evolution as recognised by mere scientists. JC, for example, is up against the "Great ‘muck to Man’ Evolutionary Beast", apparently.

Instead Creationists fight against something called "evolutionism", which subsumes all of those disciplines which offer contradiction of the Bible - hence, plate tectonics is an 'evolutionist' position. To the Creationist, evolutionism is a dark mirror image of the Bible, and is attacked on the same basis that the Bible is defended.

To find one flaw in the Bible casts doubt on the validity of the rest - after all, if it's not God's word, and 100% accurate, what is it? Therefore, the Creationist reasons, to find one flaw in "evolutionism" is to bring the whole edifice crashing down - see JC's post, where he thinks this not so trivial feat has actually been accomplished.

The reason that Creationists assume that evolution must explain the origin of life (which it doesn't), rather than the evolution of life (which it does), is that Genesis is an origin explanation. Since "evolutionism" is merely an incorrect alternative to Genesis in the Creationist view, the Creationist believes it must explain the same things - any denial of this obvious 'truth' is basically a cover-up to draw attention away from the weak parts of the Beast.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Instead Creationists fight against something called "evolutionism", which subsumes all of those disciplines which offer contradiction of the Bible - hence, plate tectonics is an 'evolutionist' position. To the Creationist, evolutionism is a dark mirror image of the Bible, and is attacked on the same basis that the Bible is defended.

I take your point, but I was commenting on Mister Bates' article in the Guardian, rather than any opinions expressed by our much loved creationist posters.

Obviously die-hard creationists can make up any straw man to attack, but I'd expect better from a Guardian journalist (yes even a 'religious affairs correspondent'):

that the Earth is not millions of years old but only a few thousand and that science proves it, rather than the Darwinian theory of evolution accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists for more than a century.

I think he should have written:

... rather than the Darwinian theory of evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology etc etc accepted by the ...

J C

Quote Scofflaw
To find one flaw in the Bible casts doubt on the validity of the rest - after all, if it's not God's word, and 100% accurate, what is it?

I agree!!

Good question for all of the Theistic Evolutionists out there?

Based on past performance, I’m not holding my breath for an answer!!!


Quote Scofflaw
The reason that Creationists assume that evolution must explain the origin of life (which it doesn't), rather than the evolution of life (which it does), is that Genesis is an origin explanation.

If you are saying that Evolution only explains Natural Selection then Creation Scientists would like to welcome you as an honorary Creation Scientist!!!

There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he correctly described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. from PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity WITHIN kinds).
The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the Theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man and all species supposedly in-between’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.

The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that all living processes and specifically DNA had an external intelligent Creator.
Science cannot observe this Creator in action – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is therefore no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.


Quote Scofflaw
Since "evolutionism" is merely an incorrect alternative to Genesis in the Creationist view, the Creationist believes it must explain the same things - any denial of this obvious 'truth' is basically a cover-up to draw attention away from the weak parts of the (Evolutionary) Beast.

Thousands of Theistic Evolutionists are operating under the belief that “evolutionism” IS the CORRECT alternative to the Creationist view of Genesis, and in particular, that it is a scientifically valid explanation for the origin of life.

If you are saying that Theistic Evolutionists are incorrect on this point, then Creation Scientists would again like to welcome you as an honorary Creation Scientist!!!


Quote Scofflaw
any denial of this obvious 'truth' is basically a cover-up to draw attention away from the weak parts of the (Evolutionary) Beast.

'Got it in one' Scofflaw!!!


Quote pH
I was commenting on Mister Bates' article in the Guardian, rather than any opinions expressed by our much loved creationist posters.

Obviously die-hard creationists can make up any straw man to attack, but I'd expect better from a Guardian journalist (yes even a 'religious affairs correspondent'):

”that the Earth is not millions of years old but only a few thousand and that science proves it, rather than the Darwinian theory of evolution accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists for more than a century.”
I think he should have written:

... rather than the Darwinian theory of evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology etc etc accepted by the ...

“The Darwinian Theory of Evolution” had NOTHING to say about ‘Cosmology or Astronomy, etc, etc.’ You are therefore creating your very own ‘straw-man’ here.

Science has NO EVIDENCE for the 'origins' of Human or indeed any life – other than by Direct Creation – so it is ‘a bit of a stretch’ to go claiming that Evolution can then explain the Cosmos and everything therein – when it is unable to even explain how a simple protein could have arisen spontaneously!!!

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Having lied to millions in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries with existing or growing social problems caused by religious fundamentalism

In the real world, the social problems most of us face are from immoral/amoral youth who live as if we were just another form of animal. The ethics of materialism is coming home to roost. The moral restraints that religion (even false religion) nurtured have almost dwindled away. Society's religious moral life disappeared two or three generations ago and it has been surviving on the carcass since.

Here's a tip - when you visit the ATM machine, don't worry about the religious fundamentalist standing next to you. Instead, watch out for the hoodie evolutionist, who believes we are just sophisticated slime.

J C

Quote Scofflaw
the Creationist reasons, to find one flaw in "evolutionism" is to bring the whole edifice crashing down - see JC's post, where he thinks this not so trivial feat has actually been accomplished.

This not so trivial feat HAS been achieved – please read my post #1403 again!!!!

Could I gently point out that finding one flaw in a Scientific Hypothesis IS enough to scientifically invalidate it.

Could I also point out that the ‘flaw’ that I have discovered in Evolution goes to the very heart of what it is attempting to scientifically explain – the origins and development of life.

All that is left of the Evolutionary Hypothesis, after taking account of this ‘flaw’ is effectively Natural Selection – which happens to be a valid Scientific Theory, that Creation Scientists have no difficulty with.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:
Here's a tip - when you visit the ATM machine, don't worry about the religious fundamentalist standing next to you. Instead, watch out for the hoodie evolutionist, who believes we are just sophisticated slime.

Ah, me auld mucker the hoodie evolutionist! Is he still about then? And what about his mates? Is Jimmy "Flicknife" the cosmologist still going strong? Or Eddie "Masher" the biochemist?

Don't talk rot, wolfsbane. Morals do not come from God, they come from Man.


Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
the Creationist reasons, to find one flaw in "evolutionism" is to bring the whole edifice crashing down - see JC's post, where he thinks this not so trivial feat has actually been accomplished.

This not so trivial feat HAS been achieved – please read my post #1403 again!!!!

Please read back over the thread. All of your points have been raised and lowered.

J C wrote:

Could I gently point out that finding one flaw in a Scientific Hypothesis IS enough to scientifically invalidate it.

Could I also point out that the ‘flaw’ that I have discovered in Evolution goes to the very heart of what it is attempting to scientifically explain – the origins and development of life.

All that is left of the Evolutionary Hypothesis, after taking account of this ‘flaw’ is effectively Natural Selection – which happens to be a valid Scientific Theory, that Creation Scientists have no difficulty with.

No. Look, JC, I know you've been away for a while, but please don't try to drag the discussion back to this particular level of stupidity. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis - it is, as you say, a modified form of Natural Selection, and I'm glad you have no difficulty with it.

Welcome to the ranks of the evolutionists!

regards,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

Could I also point out that the ‘flaw’ that I have discovered in Evolution goes to the very heart of what it is attempting to scientifically explain – the origins and development of life.

Just for the record, here's a list of some of the things the theory of evolution doesn't explain:

• Planetary motion
• The origins of the universe
• The speed of light
• Magnetic fields
• The price of goods in a free economy
• The origin of the first self replicating molecules
• The periodic table of elements

Feel free to add to it if you must.